Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy.mcp

Render PowerPoint deck

render_pptx

Build a PowerPoint (.pptx) deck from a slide spec: an ordered array of slides, each tagged with one of five fixed layouts (title, bullets, two-column, table, quote). This is NOT a template renderer like render_pdf / render_docx — there is no template slug and no free-form layout, so content has to be shaped into those five. It also converts nothing; use convert_document to turn a file you already have into a PDF. Returns a stored render { id, url, bytes, durationMs, format } where url is a signed download link valid for one hour; the deck is a .pptx, so feed the id to convert_document if the next step needs a PDF (merge_pdfs, split_pdf and the signature tools take PDFs only). Counts one render against the monthly quota. Requires a Kamy API key with the render scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
themeNo
titleNoDeck title — used as document metadata and as the returned filename stem.
formatNoWIDE = 16:9 (default), STANDARD = 4:3.WIDE
slidesYesOrdered slides. Each carries a `layout` discriminator: 'title', 'bullets', 'two-column', 'table' or 'quote'. There is no free-form layout — content that doesn't fit one of the five should be reshaped into bullets or a table.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. Description goes beyond by disclosing return format (stored render with id, url, bytes, durationMs, format), signed URL expiration (one hour), quota counting, and authentication needs (Kamy API key with render scope). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five concise sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action, immediately clarifies what it is not, and efficiently covers return value, quota, and authentication in minimal space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, limitations, return format, quota, authentication, and integration with sibling tools. No gaps remain that would hinder an AI agent from correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, and the description adds significant meaning by explaining that the slide layouts are fixed and content must be shaped into them. It also clarifies that the deck title is used as metadata and filename. While schema covers most parameters, the description adds crucial context about layout constraints and output format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it builds a .pptx deck from a slide spec with five fixed layouts, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render_pdf, render_docx, and convert_document. It effectively differentiates from these alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description explicitly states when NOT to use (not a template renderer, not for free-form layout, not for file conversion) and guides the agent to use convert_document if a PDF is needed, and mentions quota counting and API key requirements. This provides clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Kamy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate similar tools (e.g., render_pdf vs render_async vs render_batch, create_signature_request vs create_envelope). No two tools overlap in a way that would cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., attest_artifact, convert_document, list_renders). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.

Tool Count4/5

47 tools is high but reflects the broad scope of the platform (document generation, signing, auditing, scheduling, webhooks, verification). Some informational tools could be merged, but the count is still reasonable for the domain.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the core document lifecycle well but has notable gaps: no tool to delete renders, no tool to void/cancel signature requests, and no CRUD for templates (only list and schema). The inability to pause schedules via MCP is also a gap.

Resources